Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90691 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 67924 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2016 08:12:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Jan 2016 08:12:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=yohgaki@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=yohgaki@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.180 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: yohgaki@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.160.180 mail-yk0-f180.google.com Received: from [209.85.160.180] ([209.85.160.180:34370] helo=mail-yk0-f180.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C3/76-20254-68E9C965 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 03:12:54 -0500 Received: by mail-yk0-f180.google.com with SMTP id a85so527263850ykb.1 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:12:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=Elmp6uXKcA1i1dn5VfzGD6cA21xx3+hjAYhQYoE5YdQ=; b=EAuz/TdQQ7fYG9cyQnAWGbKjtJch8nl2PjykUPJRCuVdN3du2+93Z6NJNKnGqvBwOf +ylUGwn802pCnWplZ2CsuVDbi3iluTv2vwRQlYnYjtXBcvkbDt2d5y2w0iF1LlwstPBT 01y0MsVai+IPRipeJ0KrdgmeGcK6QriBXLHW3gCRhFIgrzn5MSR1OfjSzCnGXV69euxS m26TbhcDSXSK+/QSBrt1pOuN1xbsVCeR1aew6IV+5Ib1pixdFBKrhA5yBqLB9lJz2B/G mjDQD2eXlBEC2bXVWrvrvdDKqIkQi/2DCnLHBbc4LuB8cysMVRKQAARolRTzHIYf/Ri3 N1Cg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=Elmp6uXKcA1i1dn5VfzGD6cA21xx3+hjAYhQYoE5YdQ=; b=HUL2o5FAyfhlN8F3BAkbsB43oACv6P8gyvfyKW7k5tcp1wDcJPw9Jx1TEOgLQ3OtwV BuOxhEjlLFgqrp5ltZPb9ecCFsrB60DkNa14QV/qhPETIaxUiPRohZGZYtyy6dZRTW7V BvonSOgFKkvRxu5FMMkEWgoqixu5fLQROcuHbvIaUeCHqCF94nV945VuI1gMH0t9FgoO DPjicUhEhNAzEmZlfmDypRTRRZlFF5XU20YyHqRe6/yfWk5HCa4pMG/zwESgK5uNvZF3 ZobWsej1IN3LdRVT/RRhJpR+YT3qedEoxYbd20D4Vr7wHvjqUlmp0jIdNtfxMwPU3Z6V 8IzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnUmVnKCml14lDeprfrBbqb86zfCKFDij+ky+580qQv5UeBPTgw0lOeD9VeJXjUcJrubMvmCZTMbN/l2CbANjUee5D1HA== X-Received: by 10.129.60.12 with SMTP id j12mr16005517ywa.86.1453104771651; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:12:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: yohgaki@gmail.com Received: by 10.129.88.139 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:12:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 17:12:12 +0900 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3-tFAwF2Wtlvix5W8KEMSUV73pA Message-ID: To: "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][VOTE] Number Format Separator From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki) Hi all, On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Andrea Faulds wrote: > > Thomas Punt wrote: >> >> Hi internals! >> >> Voting has opened for the inclusion of a digit separator in PHP[1]. Voting >> ends in >> one week's time on January 20th. >> >> Thanks, >> Tom >> >> [1]: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/number_format_separator >> > > Initially I was going to abstain from this vote, but I've changed my mind > and I am now voting in favour of the RFC. > > When choosing whether to add features to the language, we must set a high > standard, because every new additions means additional complexity and more > knowledge PHP developers have to have. So, every new addition should be made > to fit well with existing features, be useful, and > > This feature offers some benefit in some cases. It doesn't introduce much > new complexity. There's no new syntax or tokens, it just modifies the form > of the existing number tokens. It fits in well what's already there, > consistently applying to all number literals. It follows established > convention in other languages. Its appearance at least hints that values > with these seperators are not constants or identifiers, but numbers, > reducing potential for confusion. It limits its own application to prevent > abuse (no leading, trailing, or repeated separators). And it's relatively > intuitive. > > So I think it might be worth adding, thus my vote. Though we must be > conservative with additions, this one doesn't seem to be too problematic. > > That said, I might be voting the wrong way. The feature does seem to have > limited applicability. That's really the only thing I can say against it. The same opinion. The syntax is popular enough and doesn't add much complexity, but it seems this RFC wouldn't pass. Large numeric literals are not used often. However if it is used, it's frustrating to read. e.g. Code audit/review. Why not make computer do the job? I hope more people change their mind. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net